all question, he is an officer or agent of the corporation upon whom process may be served for the purpose of affecting it with notice and giving the court jurisdiction of an action in personam against it, under the principles of the common law already stated.1 Cashiers are commonly designated in statutes as the corporate officer or agent upon whom process may be served.2 § 7523. Service upon Receivers. Service of process, in an action in a State court, upon the receiver of a railroad property appointed by a Federal court, is properly made upon the officer upon whom it would be made if the railroad had remained in the hands of the company owning it, and if the action had been against the company. But it seems competent, in a case of doubt, for the court appointing the receiver to make an order that the service in a particular case shall be deemed sufficient.* A mere § 7524. Service upon Clerk, Book-keeper, etc.clerk or book-keeper is not a "managing agent" of a corporation upon whom process can be served under a statute; nor is he such an agent as satisfies the principles of the common law, where no mode of service is pointed out by statute.' He is not an officer or agent within a statute relating to proceedings against corporations by garnishment; nor is he the proper party to make the disclosure required by the statute.' 1 Ante, § 4740, et seq.; § 5229. That a service upon the cashier of a bank of process of garnishment, in the name, although not the full name, of the bank, upon which the bank appeared by its full name and answered, constitutes a sufficient service, see Reynolds v. Smith (D. C.), 17 Wash. L. Rep. 117. And see post, § 8080. Under a statute of Virginia (Va. Code 1873, ch. 166, § 7), service of process on a director of a corporation, and also upon its cashier, is sufficient, although both disclaim, in their answers, the right to answer officially. Lewis v. Glenn, 84 Va. 947; 8. c. 6 S. E. Rep. 866. Central &c. Co. v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 426. Ibid. Illinois statutes relating to the service of process upon receivers of corporations: Ill. Laws 1887, p. 142; amended by Laws Ill. 1889, p. 138. Ante, § 7513. Ante, §§ 5195, 5233. 'Dock v. Elizabethtown &c. Man. Co., 34 N. J. L. 312. Laws Mich. No. 85, No. 175. • Pettit v. Muskegon Booming Co., 74 Mich. 214; 8. c. 41 N. W. Rep. 8 7525. Service upon Traveling Agent. It has been held that the service of summons made "on an agent authorized to effect insurance only," by which words the court understood a traveling agent for procuring applications of insurance to be transmitted to the regular office of the company for its action thereon, was not a good service of process on a domestic corporation, under a statute allowing such corporations to be sued in any county where they might "have an agency or transact any business."1 § 7526. What Agent can Accept Service. Any one upon whom service of process may be executed is competent to acknowledge in writing in behalf of the corporation that he has been served.2 § 7527. Authority to Accept Service, how Shown. - By analogy to the principle that an agency is not proved by the mere declarations of a person that he is the agent of another, so the authority of a person assuming to accept service for a corporation is not shown by the relation in which he describes himself in his written indorsement of acceptance, but his authority must otherwise appear. There is authority for the proposition that an officer or agent of a corporation can 900; post, § 7810. Service upon town clerk, county clerk, etc., under local statutes: Weil ». Greene County, 69 Mo. 281; Knox Co. v. Harshman, 133 U. S. 152; Mariner v. Waterloo, 75 Wis. 438; 8. c. 44 N. W. Rep. 512. Mandamus to board properly directed to clerk: Commissioners v. Sellew, 99 U.S. 624. No difference that clerk failed to communicate notice to board: Knox Co. v. Harshman, 133 U. S. 152. 1 Parke v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 44 Pa. St. 422. * Talladega Ins. Co. v. Woodward, 44 Ala. 287. Compare Dillard v. Central Va. Iron Co., 82 Va. 734. Where the only service of a bill in equity upon the defendant, a corporation, was by the acceptance of service by an attorney, who was requested by the president of the corporation to make such acceptance as attorney for the corporation, but the corporation had not authorized the president to accept service of legal process, or to appoint attorneys, and the corporation was accustomed to appoint its attorneys only by vote of the directors, it was held that the service was not a legal one. Bridgeport &c. Bank v. Eldredge, 28 Conn. 556; 8. c. 73 Am. Dec. 688. Compare ante, §§ 4657, 5228. 3 Talladega Ins. Co. v. Woodward, 44 Ala. 287. 2 not accept service outside of the jurisdiction within which the process of the court in which the action is brought, can run.1 But this is somewhat doubtful, at least in relation to general actions; for, as elsewhere seen, the privilege of being sued within a particular venue is generally deemed a personal privilege, which even a corporation can waive. But as a proceeding by garnishment is a special statutory proceeding, which must be strictly pursued in order that jurisdiction shall attach, it has been held that an acceptance, by an officer of the corporation, of service of a writ of garnishment outside of the county within which alone the writ can run and be served, is a nullity, and gives no jurisdiction to condemn the debt." § 7528. Service upon an Officer Who is Plaintiff in the Suit. Where an action is brought against a corporation by one of its own officers, process cannot be served upon him, although he is an officer upon whom process might be served under the applicatory statute, if he were not the plaintiff in the case. Such a service cannot support a judgment by default, and it is the duty of the court, upon the manner of service being made known to it, to refuse to enter such judgment. The reason has already been adverted to in dealing with the subject of notice to corporations. The relation of the officer to the corporation, in respect of the litigation, is such that he is interested in withholding the notice which it would otherwise be his duty to give to those officers of the corporation whose duty it would be to take the proper adversary action in its behalf. But such a service would be cured by also serving the writ upon another officer, competent to receive such service.1 87529. Service upon Corporate Officer Temporarily within the Jurisdiction. It is a sound conclusion, supported by numerous adjudications, that service, such as will support a judgment in personam, cannot be made upon an officer of a foreign corporation who, at the time, is accidentally within the jurisdiction of the forum, and that a law ascribing a greater effect to such a service would be void; since the character of such a person as a corporate officer does not, under such circumstances, accompany him to another jurisdiction;2 though there are cases supporting the view that such a service may well take the place of a constructive notice by publication, such as will support a judgment in rem against any property of the foreign corporation which may be seized within the jurisdiction.3 § 7530. Substituted Service on Another Officer where Proper Officer not Found.-Many statutes provide that service shall be had upon the chief officer of the corporation, or upon certain principal officers or agents; but with the further proviso that if such officer or agent cannot be found within the jurisdiction, service may then be had upon certain named 1 Where the president of a corporation is plaintiff in an action brought against the corporation, it has been held that a service of process upon the president of the corporation and also upon its secretary, is a sufficient service to support a judgment against the corporation by default; and that, in the absence of fraud in obtaining such a judgment, it will support a motion for an execution against a stock holder under the statute giving such an execution. Schaeffer v. Phoenix Brewery Co., 4 Mo. App. 115. 1 M'Queen v. Middletown Man. Co., 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 6; Moulin v. Trenton Mut. L. &c. Ins. Co., 24 N. J. L. 234; Newell v. Great Western R. Co., 19 Mich. 336, 345; Peckham v. North Parish, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 274, 286; Latimer v. Union Pac. R. Co., 43 Mo. 105; s. c. 97 Am. Dec. 378; State v. Ramsey Co., 26 Minn. 233; Middlebrooks v. Springfield Fire Ins. Co., 14 Conn. 301; Hulbert v. Hope Mut. Ins. Co., 4 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 275. See, as to this subject in its relation to foreign corporations, post, § 8030, et seq. Hulbert v. Hope Mut. Ins. Co. 4 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 275; Brewster v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 5 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 183; Bates v. New Orleans&c. R. Co., 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 516. subordinate officers, agents, employés, etc. Service upon offi. cers or agents of the latter class is sometimes called "substi tuted service." The general rule is that, in order to make a substituted service valid, the statute must be strictly complied with. If, for instance, the statute requires service to be had on the president, or other head officer, or permits service to be had on other officers or agents in case the president does not reside in the county or is absent therefrom, then if service is made on another officer or agent, the return must show that the president did not reside in the county, or was absent therefrom. Again, if the statute provides for such substituted service in case the principal officer "cannot be found," this means cannot be found in the county or bailiwick, and the statute is not satisfied where the sheriff merely returns that he is absent from the place of business of the corporation. SECTION SUBDIVISION II. Place and Manner of Service and Return. 7538. Service where made. 7541. Following the analogy of stat- 7542. Manner of service, delivering copy, etc. 1 Merrill v. Montgomery, 25 Mich. 73; Hoen v. Atlantic &c. R. Co., 64 Mo. 561; People v. Saginaw Circuit Court, 23 Mich. 492; St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Dorsey, 47 Ill. 288. St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Dorsey, 47 Ill. 288. Hoen v. Atlantic &c. R. Co., 64 Mo. 561. Where the statute provided that service might be made on certain officers therein named, "or if there be no such officers, or none can be found, such service may be made on such other officer or member of such corporation, or in such manner as the court in which the suit is brought SECTION 7543. Service by officer who is a mem- 7544. Service by publication. return. 7546. Objection to service and return, how made. 7547. Service of notice of appeal. may direct" (Comp. Laws Mich., § 4835), it was held that the substituted service could only be made in the county where the corporation had its principal office. People v. Saginaw Circuit Court, 23 Mich. 492. Compare Haywood v. Johnson, 41 Mich. 598, where the previous case is cited. See also Hebel v. Amazon Ins. Co., 33 Mich. 400. It may be added that this statute of Michigan does not apply to foreign corporations. People v. Wayne Circuit Court, 24 Mich. 38. This statute was amended by Mich. Laws 1887, p. 112. |